Re: checkpointer continuous flushing

On 2016-01-09 18:24:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Okay, but I think that is the reason why you are worried that it is possible
> to issue sync_file_range() on a closed file, is that right or am I missing
> something?

That's one potential issue. You can also fsync a different file, try to
print an error message containing an unallocated filename (that's how I
noticed the issue in the first place)...

I don't think it's going to be acceptable to issue operations on more or
less random fds, even if that operation is hopefully harmless.

Greetings,

Andres Freund